As the insanity of the 111th Congress finally draws to a maniacal close, we are reminded of an article posted approximately one year ago in which we wondered who would get to eat the worm as congressional members slugged down the last swig of their "insanely debauched statist binge." Now it seems painfully clear that both we, the American people, and the 112th Congress will be the ones retchingly gulping down the debt-marinated worm of redemption.

However, just when one bit of insanity is secured from further collateral damage, another one seems to pop up and from the oddest of sources no less. In fact, it was on the Eve of Christmas, of all times, that the Pope himself left those of us within the zone of comprehension gasping in exasperation.

You see, the Pope, in his presupposed wisdom, actually lay forth in front of his August body of Papal leadership, words that would make many a person's blood run cold in their apologetic outrage. The Pope actually stated that "child pornography was increasingly considered normal by society." To this we would respond "of which sodomic society do you speak, Mr. Pope?" Now, most earthly folk, after dropping this "D" for "Dementia bomb" would have let well enough alone; however, not so for Pope Benedict. He was just getting warmed up.

Flat Earthers and the Dissonate Clang of Untruth; Meet Hitler

Now, granted, it need not be pointed out the difference between the Pope's extensive theological education and those, like me, of humble Christian origins--which would appear "Grand Canyonesque" if viewed from an academian point of view--yet, one thing must be considered. Whose words, in this case, emote the tones of that ring of truth? And who also, it must be asked, has been apologizing from day one for the apparent millennium of pocketed evil rooted within his organization? What, based upon our experience, would Billy Graham or even most Protestant leaders say of this--had they heard of it?

Further, who else in America, regardless of political leanings, would accept the Pope's words, in this case, as an undeniable truth?

The Pope then went on to muse, believe it or not, that " pedophilia was not an absolute evil." In fact, the Pope, it would seem, has fallen prey to the liberal moral equivalency factions of the world who will rant that all sin, whether it be the simplest of transgressions or the worst of the worst is but the same, ultimately. On this basis, who knew that running a red light could be the same as Hitler's genocide of six million human beings? Might want to get those brakes checked out.

In fact, the Pope actually stated that sin is of a nature in that "there is only a worse than or a better than and that nothing is good or bad in and of itself." And so, we can now begin to see the rapid de-evolution of both the two millennial Church and society in general, as that which both was and still is considered an abomination, fitting of death to many, is now considered to be "just maybe worse than" by a man who is considered "holy" by "only a relative few" at this point. But the insanity also continues from those comfortable, even expected sources that we have come to rely on for many, many years.

When every other system appears to be crumbling in on itself from the ill effects of global insanity, there are always those dependable few which will continue their crumble from a strict reliance upon insanity, which brings us to the NY Times and good ole' Paul Krugman.

He's Dreaming of a Zombie Christmas....

Paul Krugman has actually let forth with an unusual bout of curiosity recently, as opposed to his usual bouts of incrementally flawed certainty. In this case titled "When Zombies Win", Krugman has been musing over exactly what might puzzle historians the most about the 2008-2010 period. Our initial answer would be a large proportion of Krugman's opinion columns for starters. But Krugman seems to alternatively believe that the thing which will puzzle historians will be the "strange triumph of free-market fundamentalists" whose ideas, according to Krugman, have failed. Not only that, we free-marketers have also been, apparently to Krugman, wrong about "everything." Everything, Paul?

Wow, so Krugman thinks that over 240 years of free-market fundamentalism, which has powered the US all the way up to, easily, the wealthiest, most modern and largest economy on the planet, as a failure? Interesting viewpoint there Paul. My initial question to the progressive Pope Paul of pop-economics would have to be, where exactly Krugman thinks everything went wrong. Was it in, maybe, 1776 when we rebelled against the Crown?

Or, maybe Krugman thinks that it was in the 1860's when slavery was expunged. Perhaps it was the Industrial Revolution, or the fact that we won both WWI and WWII against authoritarian regimes who had "more perfect solutions"--much like Krugman's? The point here being, problems did not severely begin with the US economy until the firewall rules regarding government financial meddling were incrementally relaxed over the years and our financial markets became subject to a harmful politi-forming culture variegated by the progressive whims of those who simply do not understand or don't care--or perhaps even worse.

Krugman rather naively thinks that the free-market fundamentalists "even now dominate the scene more thoroughly than ever before." The deeper point here would be that a more simplistic view of things, to be sure, has never been espoused by one who is considered an authority on all things economic--which simply do not properly function-- on a sustained basis. Krugman's other simpletonian pet project of global warming, of which he has also raged about incessantly, seems even more laughable now, than ever, as I perch here and write, near a roaring fire, on the First wide-ranging Carolinian white Christmas in 63 years.

Krugman's Obama: The Free Market, Constitutional- Capitalist King

But in fact, crony-capitalism, such as what we have consistently seen over the last several years, and what Krugman at least in part is referring to, and free-market capitalism are as far away from each other as the east and the west. Has it not been made painfully clear that free-market capitalism is the one thing that hasn't been practiced in full for quite some time now?

Krugman then goes on to lump every bank in the country together and point a raging finger at them all for nearly failing, while totally ignoring what Government-backed and controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually did that brought on the financial crisis, in addition to an ill-informed pocket of congressional bozo's. It was those Government entities who actually pumped what was a manageable bubble of a problem in 2000 up into a bloated global mass of infection that predictably popped, propelling the viral shards of its financial demise over the entire planet.

And yet, why are these facts never mentioned by the liberally-inclined pundits? Even banking queen Barney Frank now admits that government failed woefully in its actions. But the inimitable facts always do tend to interrupt a resoundingly fascicle and one-dimensional argument, eh Paul?

Then Krugman actually puts forth a point, which flies in the face of both logic and sanity, by fishing simplistic cause and effect non-issues out of his Christmas stocking and thrusting them out for our blind cognitive consumption--as if there were some direct singular relationship--when broad-brush invective serves to explain the extraordinarily complex.

Krugman's point--if we can all get our child-like, trusting arms around it--was simply this: Krugman thinks that, somehow, because Clinton raised taxes, thereby forcibly relieving taxpayers of more of their property, this action set off a cataclysm of shocked growth in the private markets. Bush, meanwhile, cut taxes and presided over "anemic growth" as a result according to Krugman. Yet, where are the unemployment numbers during these periods? Who was in control of Congress during these periods? What, within the international economy, was ocurring, and when did NAFTA come into play, Mr. Krugman?

Immaterial issues no doubt, because that's it! Krugman's Nobel reasoning shall prevail. Who could have guessed that raising taxes stimulates--and lowering them deflates growth. Truthfully, simplistic and disingenuous thinking, such as this, is precisely why America's economy is mired not to mention that "It's The Spending, Stupid!" Surely Krugman, being an Economist, knows that there were far many more things going on during each of these economic periods than just the raising and lowering of taxes, correct? But Krugman then goes on to try to reason out that big-government Obamanomics admittedly didn't work because, and get this, they "weren't BIG government policies." To this we would state: No, indeed; they were, in fact, Statist Federal directives which equates to HUGE government policies.

For Heaven's sake, Krugman, your Messiah, even now, controls GM--he actually fired the prior CEO after giving the largess of the proceeds to the labor unions. That's not Big-Government, Sir? Taking over private industries such as student loans and financial institutions, gobbling up insanely operating organizations such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from quasi-government to full government entities is not Big-Government? Buying treasuries by printing money in the form of quantitative easing, while forcing citizens to buy health insurance is also not Big-Government? If, indeed, these items of interest do not fit into Krugman's idea of Big-Government, then what in Heaven's name does, and how many might actually survive it were implementation to take effect?

Oh, My God...(No, not you Mr.President)

Then, Saints help us, Krugman goes on to to explain how the Stimulus "wasn't large enough," in that Government, by his reckoning, grew too slowly (it actually increased by about 25%) and that Government employment, in his odd means of measuring, actually fell (it increased by 25%) and that this Stimulus hardly constituted a proper test of Keynesian economics.

Euro-socialist Keynesianism is failing mightily and yet Krugman blithely skates past the thin ice of this fact. One must suppose that Krugman's proper test can only be on a huge, capitalistic powerhouse with oodles of reserve cash and a built-in ability to print its own currency...hmm...isn't that us, Paul?

Truthfully, if the largest economy on this planet is not a big enough test for Krugman's Keynesian economics, then...he might need to find a bigger planet. The simple truth is that most of the Stimulus, if not all, went to State Governments and many academian institutions and a few shovel-ready projects that weren't shovel ready. Had Obama sent it out to the folks who are paying the taxes, it "might" have stimulated growth enough to pull unemployment down a goodly measure, but, oh wait, that was George W's trick, wasn't it? And despite Bush's consisitently running 5% unemployment ranges for the greatest balance of his administration, his efforts were a failure?

Krugman then tells us that everything that we have been saying as to why Obamanomics has failed has been wrong. He further postulates that the Government's continual borrowing has not caused inflation and that core-energy and food prices are now at a half -century low. In actuality Paul, food prices, along with fuel prices, have, indeed, been ratcheting upwards. The most probable reason that inflation has, not of yet, raged out of control is because the economy has been flirting with a depression for quite some time now. Depression, such as what we are seeing with housing prices and many manufactured goods along with stubborn unemployment, is the double-barreled shotgun of economic hazard that we have been staring down since October of 2008.

Our employment numbers have been in a depression for two long years, now. This is the logical reason for the lack of inflation, which acts as a counter-force to deflation as the entire economy teeters on the pivot of calamity. Once the nation eases out of these depressionary forces, and, especially, when the QE and QE2 kick in, this will most likely be where inflation rears her ghastly visage.

The Real Zombie Economics

Krugman also fails to consider what two of the largest traders in the world are culminating. Both Russia and China have halted the use of the dollar as an exchange currency between the two countries. If this trend continues, the demand for the dollar will drop, and when basic supply of a currency outstrips demand then what do you have Mr. Krugman? In fact, a worldwide lowering of the value of that particular trading unit--being the dollar would--trends inflation upwards--magnitudinally--according to experts. Herein lies a problem in the not-to-distant future if the US fails to get its act together and quickly.

Then Krugman goes zombie on us, based upon a book by Australian writer John Quiggin, who states that free-market fundamentalism is a dead idea which he calls Zombie Economics. To this we would say he is right in one sense, that being that no one seems to be using the fundamental principles of free-market capitalism anymore. The markets have been roiled by an ever-increasing Keynesian shift to control by regulation and manipulation. Health insurance carriers, and their ongoing demise under Obama, is one of the most immediate examples. But these such examples of over-regulation and government meddling are why everything, everywhere is or was failing, as Keynesianism has taken over and free-market capitalism has gone by the wayside. One need only look at the disastrous effects, once again, of the Community Reinvestment Act, coupled with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's over-extensions to see this.

In fact, both Quiggin, Krugman and a host of others appear to be arguing for much, much more of the very same things which are continually weakening our various economies in the first place. Perhaps those within our government actually know this specific lonely truth and telegraph that very fact to us by their constantly saying that America will no longer be the economic powerhouse that she was. That high unemployment will remain and will become "business as usual, so get over it and shut-up." This is, in effect, what they have been telling us.

Regardless, Krugman then brings up Ronald Reagan, a man Krugman has despised for decades, in order to explain what Obama has been up to.

First Krugman states that Obama has tried to reach across the aisle. Well, yes, that is true, but the reaching across the aisle for Obama was only so that he could deliver a hearty "smack to the face" of his opponents, Sir. No one can deny that Obama has created an environment of extreme partisanship that was nothing at all like Reagan or even Clinton's time.

Chained-Market Capitalism: Obama's AmeriKa

Krugman then states that "Obamas trying to be partisan" stopped no one from denouncing him as a Socialist. To this we can unequivocally state to Mr. Krugman, Socialism is as Socialism does; nothing that Obama has done could even be remotely described as free-market capitalism. Nothing.

Further, Obama's compromise was done simply because he now has to do it to get what he wants, for the most part--at least until we root out the Rinos and the Republicrats who remain in Congress. Then his ability to perform anything of the left will be difficult at best.

Krugman then further displays his mindless insanity when he speaks dejectedly of the fact that America's talk of spending cuts will offset any positive effects of the tax deal. So, once again, plying the avowed ruminations of Liberalism, Krugman wishes America to continue down the road of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland among others who are, even now, going bankrupt by spending far more than we are making so that things will improve? Maybe some Zombie, somewhere, is staggering around with Krugman's brain oozing its way down its digestive tract, this would, indeed, explain much.

In fact, if Krugman can get get a Nobel for his extensive body of fiction, does that not mean that I should get, at least, a Pulitzer for these writings of the simplest of truths? This ain't rocket science folks, you know, and yet most cannot deny that the facts obtained in the real world--here-- always cast those facts obtained in Krugman's diaphanous world of questionable theory and hyperbole as only the poorest of tabloid fiction--at best. What we have been seeing are what can effectively be called Chained-Market Capitalism: Obama Style which would explain the constantly sputtering and accelerating economy that no one can quite get a grip on.

Krugman ends by noting that "politics is the art of the possible." He then states that when one such as Obama "opens his doors to the zombie ideas of free-market capitalism, the zombie ends up eating your brain and quite possibly your economy, too."

To this, Mr. Krugman, we must only note that your ideas work in much the same ways as your zombies.